Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

taxes do pay for education but most of our Politicians send their kids to private schools. Do you want the healthcare system run like the bureaucrats run our education system?

Versus having nothing available at all to so many people? Yes. I see what you're getting at...and I was about to raise that same statement, jack. People are constantly decrying the ''failing of the public education system''. But I really tremble at the thought of what our population would be like if education was handled the same way healthcare is in our country. True, privatization can bring about competition and all that...but just think if education was subject to denial if/when families couldn't pay. Or like the situation with choosing meds described above...what if little Johnny really wanted to take math and science, but could only afford reading and spelling.

There are so many opponents in the medical community that oppose this for the sheer greed factor alone.For 18.5 yrs. I worked for an academic superpower, tied to a not for profit, faith based hospital. The conglomerate known as: Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. The word clusterfuck comes to mind. I worked as a nurse specialist for Wake Forest(with all of the uppity-up docs, who thought they were gods because of their speciality)So the medical system was split.....but oh, so UN evenly. The premise is simple.(kinda)If you have insurance, you can see the ATTENDING physicians(read Professors), who all carry cool letters behind their names. If you don't, you get to see the residents in training for regular primary care, or a specialty.....BUTthe residents graduate every one, or two years(given the specialty) and the continuity of care SUCKS. I worked for a Napoleonic physician who had an International reputation, and garnered much revenue, and attention for The Medical Center. He was a bombastic, primadonna, with a superiority complex that I had never encountered.(and you find them frequently in academia)According to him, I worked for him, and was expected to tow the line according to his whims. Reality dictated that I worked for the department(including the residents).He instructed me clearly to NOT accept Medicaid patients, and by the same token, he would not see any one whose insurance didn't check out to pay mucho deniro.He was/is a flagrant depiction of those who detract from the universal access debate, as he made no apology for making it clear that he (megalomaniac that he was) would never see any of the lesser people(read: anyone without primo healthcare insurance). He made no secret of the fact that if they only had Medicaid, they were not of even sufficient import to to bestow his talent upon.I was instructed to not see Medicaid patients.My professional/ethical meter went over the flagpole every time he dictated this to me. I saw the patients, and they got the quality of care that every one of my/our patients deserved. He just never had to know about it.

The point I am insufficiently making, is that every patient everywhere deserves the best of my ability, regardless of their ability to pay. I have not been able to work since 2003. My COBRA ran out long ago. I was only able to maintain the 380$/month premium for a while, because I had been bestowed a small(18K) inheritance due to my father's death in 1/03.(no correlation between his death and my work stoppage)As citizens, we all deserve the same level of quality care by our medical comunity.The only reason the AMA bucks this, is because it detracts from their pockets.They(some) scream to the rafters in defiance of universal health access because of the same psychological brainwashing that the mainstream has been bombarded with, in an effort to keep their pockets lined. I have been living without insurance for two years now. I am able to receive my HIV drugs because of the ADAP program. Otherwise, I would be dead by now. I cannot see the primary care doctor who has been my best advocate, because I am no longer "allowed" to, unless I wish to incur costs that I cannot afford.I live in HOPWA funded section8 housing with no rent required yet, as I have no income. As a matter of fact, my ONLY income is 72.00$/mo. given to me by the Housing Authority for energy assistance.My retirement accounts have been drained completely, while I have been awaiting our government to understand that I cannot work. Because I saw doctors in my own health care setting, their attempts to protect me from discrimination from our collective employers, made it so that the "qualifying" terminology was not used in my medical records.(because of Dr. Megalomaniac)So here I am. I entered the workforce in 1974. I have paid taxes for almost thirty years, and I cannot access the depression meds I need because North Carolina's ADAP program covers only the BARE basics. HIV drugs, Antibiotics, Antifungals, Phenergan, and Elavil. PERIOD.Even the health care workers agree that some form of universal access is a right. It is people like Dr. Megalomaniac that fight it aggressively, to keep up with their mid-life crisis spending sprees.Repeat after me: I am special because I went to Medical School. I deserve HUGE amounts of money becuase of reason #1. NOBODY better get in my way, because I want a new _________(insert fancy car/SUV) There is so much more, but I am tired now from working so hard to keep my focus.Don't it make you just want to scream? This is only one tiny scenario.Healthcare is a right, morally, and ethically.

A rosie picture of our educational system adjoined with our healcare system as it stands today.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2007, 02:55:51 PM by Lisa »

Logged

No Fear No Shame No StigmaHappiness is not getting what you want, but wanting what you have.

Lisa I think you've demonstrated quite well with your own personal circumstances the seriousness of the situation.

Don't even get me started on the doctors, or worse medical directors that are meglamaniacs. I had to work with them for so long and I was just astonished at the lack of moral and ethical compases with most in power in the industry.

You've worked for 30 years and aren't even afforded the same medications as Scott Peterson. How can anyone not ethically see how wrong the situation is?

Don't be knocking the space program. Those billions spent are well worth it.

It gave us Tangô and those cushiony pillows and that's damn good enough for me....

Course, I pity the first astronaut that gets raped by a martian, but that's what happens when you go and invade other planets. And then that will cause an interplanetary incident which will escalate into a war that will cost trillions, but hey, at least we got Tang out of the deal.

Don't be knocking the space program. Those billions spent are well worth it.

It gave us Tangô and those cushiony pillows and that's damn good enough for me....

Course, I pity the first astronaut that gets raped by a martian, but that's what happens when you go and invade other planets. And then that will cause an interplanetary incident which will escalate into a war that will cost trillions, but hey, at least we got Tang out of the deal.

LIFE is not a race to the grave with the intention of arriving safelyin a pretty and well-preserved body, but, rather to skid in broadside,thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming--WOW! WHAT ARIDE!!!

I did come away from it wondering something. It appears that the patient pays the Dr out of pocket first, then get's reimbursed approx 90%, right?

In the US, those too poor now to have health coverage, would more than likely not be able to come up with the $ to see the Dr, even if they're going to be reimbursed. How does that situation work itself out in your country?

Actually at the rate business are decreasing what they offer employees for insurance benefits, at the rate that deductibles increase as well as co-payments, and with ever increasing globalization and competing with countries who offer nationalized health (therefore this not being included in a business overseas as overhead) some other sort of single payer system will eventually be demanded in the US not just by voters but also by business executives.

So I disagree Ron... it will eventually happen. There have been quite a number of polls showing a favorable look by the voting public on this issue.

You're not anymore convincing to me repeating those lines than I suppose I am to you. In fact, a quick review of your postings over three pages really doesn't provide me with much you've said except to say over and over "it won't work, forget it." I'll say that's a fascinating analysis though, but I'd be horribly dripping with sarcasm.

My experiences working at some very notable healthcare institutions are very much in line with Lisa's. I believe it is insurance reform that needs to take place, rather than socialization of medicine. Well that and someone really needs to tell some of these docs to shut the f**k up. You're a human just like me.

I agree completely that everyone deserves the highest levels of health care available. If we place everything in the hands of the government however advances will slow significantly.

If medicine is government controled, equipment manufacturers will have no reason to continue with the current pace of advancement. Pharmaceutical companies will have very little reason to spend millions developing new drugs. Physicians will have very little reason to experiment with new procedures. In fact they will likely be even more restricted than they are currently.

In my little piece of the medical world I'm trying to convince the FDA to allow us to sell a new mammo machine that uses a new technology to provide significantly better images and has been shown to be able to detect micro calcifications that todays technology simply miss. This is a huge thing. The problem is, If my competitor was awarded the mammo machine contract for the government for the next 5 years, there isn't a chance in hell I could convince my company to spend the millions of dollars need to develop this machine. In a competitive free market however; I simply have to bring the concept to them, and convince them I'll make them all rich. The end result is fewer women die of breast cancer. Take this concept and apply it to every medical device, every drug, every new procedure.

Do we need to fix things? Yes we do. Giving it to the government is not the answer.

Here's what is missing from this debate. HOW DO WE GET THERE?? I really would like to get there, but the question is HOW?

Polls may show that people want it, but they will change their minds when they see the costs of a wholesale switch to gov't funded health care (I've never used the term "socialized" -- it's too problematic a word for many). I'm not only talking about an increase in taxes, although that is a part of it (a comment was made that someone (i'm sorry I can't find the post) from Canada pays no more taxes than we do, but that wouldn't be true if we switched -- they'd be paying less). The other is the economic upheaval that would ensue -- I'm not only talking about "fat-cat insurance executives" or the doctors that everyone thinks makes so much money, I'm talking about the lab technicians and nurses and janitors in the local hospitals that will end up closing. We may say it is a basic human right and is ethical to have universal coverage, but how do we get there in a way that doesn't cause chaos. That is the true challenge here. We have a couple of states that seem to want to try a hybrid model -- I hope they are wildly successful. It will likely breed more attempts and more attempts until everyone has health care coverage.Yes, people are suffering, going without care and dying and that is wrong, but I think simply stating that Universal Care should happen is all Motherhood and Apple Pie -- Let's talk about reality and see how to achieve it. A magic wand isn't going to do it. People need to understand the pain to get there and how we can minimize it.(and talking about other's current pain, unfortunately, won't be persuasive enough for most -- how many thought about this issue back before we needed serious healthcare??)

I do like this debate, but we need more than each side saying that "I am right, you are wrong".

Mike

One more thing -- I don't agree that everyone deserves "the highest levels of healthcare available" that has contributed to the mess we are in -- what everyone deserves is the "appropriate level of healthcare" for their needs. Let's stop practicing defensive medicine and giving patient's what they want instead of giving them what they need.

Defensive medicine is a bad thing. That would have to be fixed by torte reform.

How much does the government supplement the pharmaceutical companies? I have no idea. I do however know they give equipment manufacturers nothing. Forget the cost of developing/inventing a new technology, the cost of getting a new device approved by the FDA is millions. I have little doubt pharmaceutical companies have a similar model.

Defensive medicine is a bad thing. That would have to be fixed by torte reform.

How much does the government supplement the pharmaceutical companies? I have no idea. I do however know they give equipment manufacturers nothing. Forget the cost of developing/inventing a new technology, the cost of getting a new device approved by the FDA is millions. I have little doubt pharmaceutical companies have a similar model.

And single payer systems in every other county in the industrialized world has resulted in zero demand for these new technologies?

Some of us seem to be talking about universal health care, by which I am assuming they mean some sort of single payer health insurance coverage, retaining the current mix of private, public, and governmental provided health services.

Others are talking about socialized medicine, which I presume means a nationalization of health services where the government, either state or federa, or a mix of the two, would own the hospitals and clinics and employ doctors and auxiliaries to staff them.

Which is it?

Is the term socialized being used to denigrate the idea of universal health care? It seems to to me, but I could be wrong.

Another question:

What is so wrong with medicare and medicaid that those services should not be extended to everyone, versus just the elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken? And if everyone is not deserving of it, then why are they?

Some of us seem to be talking about universal health care, by which I am assuming they mean some sort of single payer health insurance coverage, retaining the current mix of private, public, and governmental provided health services.

Others are talking about socialized medicine, which I presume means a nationalization of health services where the government, either state or federa, or a mix of the two, would own the hospitals and clinics and employ doctors and auxiliaries to staff them.

Which is it?

Is the term socialized being used to denigrate the idea of universal health care? It seems to to me, but I could be wrong.

Another question:

What is so wrong with medicare and medicaid that those services should not be extended to everyone, versus just the elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken? And if everyone is not deserving of it, then why are they?

Appy polly loggies... I have been referring to a system of universal insurance provided by the government... not like a government HMO, more like a government POS plan... that's my dream, anyway...

Edited to add: I have been using about 3,000 different terms for this... sorry.

There are a number of possibilities. If you are a pensioner or on disability, the doctor charges you nothing and just bills the government.some doctors do this for all patients ie you just go in and swipe your medicare card. Fewer and fewer do this for all patients though as they argue that the government rebate is too low.

My doc charges me $75 to see him, I then take the receipt to the Medicare office and get about $58 back. I could of course do this 'electronically' but call me old fashioned, I like cold hard cash. If my out of pocket expensess, dir's visits, prescriptions etc go over $750 (I think) for the financial year, then I get reimbursed even more - i think I pay zip, not sure though as I've never hit the mark.

The costs of my blood tests are covered 100%, but some other things I get about 85-90% back eg an MRI scan, however, a liver ultra-sound was a free, as are x-rays generally.

We have public and private hospitals. surgeries operate as private entities.it's not socialized as such, but as citizens we all put money into a pool so that the overall costs are born by the sociey as a whole and not the individual. You can still have private health insurance and go to expensive hospitals with high priced doctors and with ala carte lunches if you want.

I think most of us can agree that socialism has a negative conotation like facism and communism it's used to negate the idea of universal health care.

I may have even used the term, but it's clear others use it just to put a negative spin on the concept.

Most hospitals and various other facilities are privately owned and will never go out of buiness. Doctors will not become unemployable. I don't understand how anyone feels that would occur.

At the present rate, there's no way the current system will survive.

And those who are so quick to make the statement if you work for a company you will be insured. That's so not true. My brother works full time and is also self employed and can't afford insurance. I know tons of people in this position.

Sure, some people could have to transition into other careers depending on what is and isn't needed.

To me, the biggest problem is that while most of us would like a universal healthcare system fear prevents action from being taken and most people are far to complacent to do anything.

Some people are so apathetic that that they feel nothing is worth trying. Others are happy with the status quo and figure well I have insurance now and just assume they always will.

Some of us seem to be talking about universal health care, by which I am assuming they mean some sort of single payer health insurance coverage, retaining the current mix of private, public, and governmental provided health services.

Others are talking about socialized medicine, which I presume means a nationalization of health services where the government, either state or federa, or a mix of the two, would own the hospitals and clinics and employ doctors and auxiliaries to staff them.

Which is it?

Is the term socialized being used to denigrate the idea of universal health care? It seems to to me, but I could be wrong.

Another question:

What is so wrong with medicare and medicaid that those services should not be extended to everyone, versus just the elderly, disabled and poverty-stricken? And if everyone is not deserving of it, then why are they?

I'm talking about single payers. Most arguing against any changes don't comprehend the differences you just discussed.

You miss the point. Governments award contracts to different manufacturers for a set period of time. If I invent a new CT machine that is faster, or better than the one just purchased by the government I have no one to sell it to. Doing away with competition will result in a slowing in advancement. Frankly as an aids patient I really hope someone comes up with a cure. The odds of someone doing so without an incentive is pretty slim. Research takes money. People spend money on R & D to make money. It really is that simple. Do you really want some bureaucrat looking at a budget and saying, "This year we will spend $X on researching an AIDS cure."? I'd greatly prefer some researcher telling his employer "I think if you give me another million I can finish this experiment that may cure AIDS." If his employer says no, he just goes to the competitor down the street. In a wholly government run system there is no competitor down the street.

I concede our system is not perfect and that it needs some change. Giving it to our government is not the answer.I spent the beginning of my career in military medicine, and continue to be involved in the VA medical system. There are certainly strong points, but I shudder to think of the consequence of putting the entire country into that system.

I think most of us can agree that socialism has a negative conotation like facism and communism it's used to negate the idea of universal health care.

I may have even used the term, but it's clear others use it just to put a negative spin on the concept.

Most hospitals and various other facilities are privately owned and will never go out of buiness. Doctors will not become unemployable. I don't understand how anyone feels that would occur.

At the present rate, there's no way the current system will survive.

And those who are so quick to make the statement if you work for a company you will be insured. That's so not true. My brother works full time and is also self employed and can't afford insurance. I know tons of people in this position.

Sure, some people could have to transition into other careers depending on what is and isn't needed.

To me, the biggest problem is that while most of us would like a universal healthcare system fear prevents action from being taken and most people are far to complacent to do anything.

Some people are so apathetic that that they feel nothing is worth trying. Others are happy with the status quo and figure well I have insurance now and just assume they always will.

You're right about complacency... but as in Dr. Zhivago, when the boots wear out, the soldiers will listen. I have excellent, excellent insurance through my job. But has what it offered declined while the amount I pay for it go up?

Fuck. Yeah. Daddy.

When the levels of service that private insurers offer sinks low enough, Americans will demand that action be taken.

Hell, it was a dead letter on arrival in Congress in 1993-4. Now there are several states setting up compulsory insurance programs... real people and the representatives closer to them (the ones in their states) know the system is broken and immoral. It's been going down like a lead balloon for 10 years with no signs of improvement, and people are starting to take action.

You miss the point. Governments award contracts to different manufacturers for a set period of time. If I invent a new CT machine that is faster, or better than the one just purchased by the government I have no one to sell it to. Doing away with competition will result in a slowing in advancement. Frankly as an aids patient I really hope someone comes up with a cure. The odds of someone doing so without an incentive is pretty slim. Research takes money. People spend money on R & D to make money. It really is that simple. Do you really want some bureaucrat looking at a budget and saying, "This year we will spend $X on researching an AIDS cure."? I'd greatly prefer some researcher telling his employer "I think if you give me another million I can finish this experiment that may cure AIDS." If his employer says no, he just goes to the competitor down the street. In a wholly government run system there is no competitor down the street.

I concede our system is not perfect and that it needs some change. Giving it to our government is not the answer.I spent the beginning of my career in military medicine, and continue to be involved in the VA medical system. There are certainly strong points, but I shudder to think of the consequence of putting the entire country into that system.

We're not talking about making every hospital government-run... or making every doctor a government employee... or making pharma companies into government entities. They still have flourishing private medical enterprises in Canada and Europe.

Your argument is akin to "Northrop Grumman has no incentive to make a faster jet because their only customer is the government." And yet... they do. Why? Because there are competing aerospace development firms within the same field... no one is suggesting that pharma companies become public entities.

We're talking about keeping them as private entities, with the government footing the bill through a single payer payment plan.

If the government foots the bill, how can you claim it is a public entity? In this "Single Payer" plan who is the payer if not the government. Please, come up with a change, I would embrace it. But clearly the government is not the solution. You keep bringing up Canada, My company which has developed a product that has gone from 2% market share to 40% market share in 5 years (The machine really is THAT good) has been unable to sell it in Canada because it wasn't on the government approved list of manufacturers.

I have spent my entire adult life in medicine, both as a care giver and as an OEM and as a patient, I fully understand how broken, not only our system, but the government controlled systems, and the so called hybrid systems around the world are. I have witnessed first hand the strengths and weaknesses of systems around the world. I will again say: Our system is flawed and needs help. The answer is not give it to the government and ask them to fix it. The answer is also not. "Make it free for everyone!" The answer must be make it available for everyone. There's a big big difference.

You can talk this until you're blue in the face. The US will never go to Socialized Medicine. I don't know why anyone wants to get uptight about it. It just will never happen.

Never name the well from which you will not drink.

As others have pointed out, lots of people have made bold claims about what will never happen in the US.

We once said torture and the government spying on it's citizenry was impossible in the US. Look where we are now.

We once said gays and lesbians would never have their relationships recognized, but slowly, more communities are recognizing them and more corporations are extending benefits to partners of gays and lesbians.

It's comforting to think we won't do this or that, but eventually, as we find ourselves struggling to keep up with a world that is growing and evolving around us, we will incorporate the things that give them an edge over us into our own system.....maybe not in the exact same way, but change is inevitable and not necessarily something to be feared (unless you are a conservative who thinks the status quo is always the best).

Oh, and calling "socialized" health care is a very clever ploy the right uses to make you think "socialist."

Which then makes this pop in your head.

And then you think that providing such a basic service to citizens means we're a hop, skip and a jump away from setting up gulags in Alaska.

You raise a very good point, there. It's something of a cultural anomaly in the United States that due to the fact that we were of two superpowers with the USSR being the other and the visceral distrust if not not outright hatred that was developed during the cold war, most Americans cannot distinguish between the concept of socialism and Soviet-style communism. They are hardly the same thing. The US has a long history of socialism. Public schools. The military. Police departments. Fire department. Public libraries. The interstate highway system. The CDC. The court system. The municipal water supply. The FDA. The CIA. Public transportation. The list just goes on and on of projects funded with taxpayer money which is, in effect, socialism.

But unfortunately, there are far too many people who toss out the word socialism as a propaganda bomb to try to END discussion rather than encourage civil discourse and open discussion of ideas.

You raise a very good point, there. It's something of a cultural anomaly in the United States that due to the fact that we were of two superpowers with the USSR being the other and the visceral distrust if not not outright hatred that was developed during the cold war, most Americans cannot distinguish between the concept of socialism and Soviet-style communism. They are hardly the same thing. The US has a long history of socialism. Public schools. The military. Police departments. Fire department. Public libraries. The interstate highway system. The CDC. The court system. The municipal water supply. The FDA. The CIA. Public transportation. The list just goes on and on of projects funded with taxpayer money which is, in effect, socialism.

But unfortunately, there are far too many people who toss out the word socialism as a propaganda bomb to try to END discussion rather than encourage civil discourse and open discussion of ideas.

I've never liked that tactic.

But what about the insidious Commie plot to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids through water fluoridation?

You see this is why discussion is impossible here. I have presented one side of a discussion in a clearly stated well reasoned manner.I very simply stated that taking the competition out of the medical system we slow advancements in technology. This is a very negative effect of providing "free" government health care. I agreed that our system is flawed and should be changed. The response: Nitpicking sentances and sentence structure. I ask again how does this single payer system encourage new procedures, medicines, and technology. The world has shown very clearly it does not.Regarding the Grummond question. We're still flying 20 year old f-15's once grummon or whoever is awarded the contract. The other companies have no incentive, they also have civilian sector to sell to.

Well done, a topic that can be reasonably discussed shut down again, because in the absence of a valid argument some choose to belittle, yell and scream. I do certainly appreciate the reminder. Please.... go back to discussing porn.

You see this is why discussion is impossible here. I have presented one side of a discussion in a clearly stated well reasoned manner.I very simply stated that taking the competition out of the medical system we slow advancements in technology. This is a very negative effect of providing "free" government health care. I agreed that our system is flawed and should be changed. The response: Nitpicking sentances and sentence structure. I ask again how does this single payer system encourage new procedures, medicines, and technology. The world has shown very clearly it does not.Regarding the Grummond question. We're still flying 20 year old f-15's once grummon or whoever is awarded the contract. The other companies have no incentive, they also have civilian sector to sell to.

Well done, a topic that can be reasonably discussed shut down again, because in the absence of a valid argument some choose to belittle, yell and scream. I do certainly appreciate the reminder. Please.... go back to discussing porn.

So... the fifth generation of fighter jets... the ones developed by defense contractors over the past decade? The F-35, the F-22 Raptor, etc.. those are all dim sum, I suppose?

I'm sorry, I don't see how the need for innovation is removed when the government is your primary customer.

And furthermore, in a single-payer plan... you don't think the consumers (i.e. the citizenry) aren't going to demand further treatments.

Your point about an AIDS cure... are you aware that the current system encourages people to think that a potential cure is there... but because pharms companies reap so much money from HAART, that it's not being looked into vigorously or even surpressed because a cure would mean an end to the Norvir cash cow?

What private entity does Northrup-Grumman sell anything to? It sells to Uncle Sugar. Over and over again. One newly developed jet and bomb after another.

I don't see having a single payer vs. multiple payer system would stifle competition in development of new medical technologies. The only competition it would stifle would be that between the insurance underwriters, who are currently skimming a hefty percentage off the top of our health care dollar before it is even spent on health care.

You have to hand it over to the government to make it available to everyone.

OK -- let's do that with other "rights" and "moral issues". Like equality for same-sex couples?? My big capitalist employer will allow me to put my partner on my benefits at their expense, but the "'benevolent" government doesn't recognize us as a couple, so they tax me for it. Oh, yeah, and I'm not afforded the "right" to marry him, even though we've been together for 16+ yrs. So, I'm not convinced that the government is the answer at fairly distributing rights!!

OK -- let's do that with other "rights" and "moral issues". Like equality for same-sex couples?? My big capitalist employer will allow me to put my partner on my benefits at their expense, but the "'benevolent" government doesn't recognize us as a couple, so they tax me for it. Oh, yeah, and I'm not afforded the "right" to marry him, even though we've been together for 16+ yrs. So, I'm not convinced that the government is the answer at fairly distributing rights!!

I'm just saying!

Mike

Because the free market is what ended segregation, right?

Refresh me on that one...

And the free market is what ensures workers' rights on the jobs through the Department of Labor, OSHA, ADA, and God knows what else, right?

I hate to say this, but if it was up to the free market and not the government... all of our asses would be out on the streets. Because those messiahs of capitalism would have fired out HIV+ butts in two minutes flat... and would you be defending your employer then?

Look, I'm not saying anyone is wrong in wanting everyone to have access to health care. Thati is what I want too. What I have been trying to do is point out that a magic wand will not do it. The government hasn't been great with Medicaid and Medicare. I'm trying to find out what people think will work. How do we get there, how do we handle the upheaval from the change. Yes, other countries have done it -- but I'm betting (and I'm not an expert here) they didn't have our current system. Yes, I believe hospitals, doctors and other health providers would go out of business if the government took over, because it would be about lowering costs and consolidation. So, Please stop telling me why I'm "wrong" -- I have close to the same goals as you -- tell me HOW WE DO IT-- or how you think it might happen or anything but why I'm wrong and why we SHOULD get there (because I agree with that point).